If the army has a second-worst job (it goes without saying that combat is by far the scariest and most horrific), it has to be the one depicted in director-cowriter Oren Moverman’s The Messenger, which draws us into the lives of the soldiers whose grim duty it is to inform next of kin that a loved one has died in the conflict in Iraq. Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster, best known for his recurring role in Six Feet Under) has just returned home, injured, decorated as a hero for saving several other soldiers, and only three months from being discharged, when he is assigned to Casualty Notification (described by his commanding officer as “a sacred mission”). Paired with Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), a tightly wound, by-the-book veteran, Will soon discovers just how excruciating their job is, as a series of wrenchingly powerful scenes shows them delivering the worst possible news to spouses, parents, and others. The responses vary–stunned disbelief, weeping hysterics, becoming physically ill, even spitting in Will’s face–but when Stone and Montgomery encounter Olivia (Samantha Morton), her reaction to being told she is now a widow is so dignified that Will, whose girlfriend (Jena Malone) found another man while he was at war, starts to quietly court her, in defiance of strict army regulations. The acting by those in both major and minor roles is uniformly excellent. Foster and Morton’s scenes together are tender, tentative, and poignant without a trace of cheap sentimentality; and as Stone and Montgomery gradually bond, the former confronts his own demons without the scenery-chewing that has characterized many of Harrelson’s recent roles. Bolstered by a script (by Moverman and Alessandro Camon) that also addresses the difficulty that soldiers in general have after returning home from the war, The Messenger, while certainly not an easy watch, ranks among the best movies of 2009. –Sam Graham
Buy “The Messenger” For Only $19.99
March 4, 2010
#1
I would classify this quiet small movie among the brillant average ones, if such a label exists. There is nothing outstanding about it (maybe apart from the main actor), it does not really have a message despite its title, it carries no ideology, it doesn’t proselytize. Plain realism.
A simple story: a man (Foster) returns from Iraq, a staff sergeant, wounded, highly decorated, sceptical about the merits of his decoration, and for the last 3 months in the army he gets assigned to carry ‘the message’ to next of kin of soldiers killed in action or otherwise. He resists in the beginning, gets broken in by an a…hole of a superior, played by Woody H., who in the course of events turns out to be rather more human than needed. We follow the duo to a few assigments, each hard in so many different ways. We follow the private lives of the two men: WH an alcoholic and sex addict, Foster disturbed by his old girl friend’s desertion, by loneliness. The two make uncomfortable friends. Foster’s character develops a shy friendship with one of the women that he had to notify. The ending is open, like in real life. All endings are open until the message comes.
March 4, 2010
#2
Oren Moverman makes a strong directorial debut after having quite a bit of success as a screenwriter. Here, he relies heavily on his strength for story, yet still finds powerful sequences of visual beauty. Ben Foster plays Will Montgomery, an injured soldier, hardened by war, forced to work alongside a Gulf War Vet. Together they travel through New Jersey informing family members that their son, daughter, husband or wife has died in combat. Montgomery fights this position that requires such human contact, but soon finds kinship with a young mother whose soldier husband has just died. Moverman echoes back to the films of Hal Ashby and Robert Altman in several sequences, using long takes and a constantly probing camera lens. Ben Foster, Woody Harrelson and Samantha Morton all give very strong performances in their respected roles. The weakness, if the only one, comes in Jena Malone’s performance. Her development is weak and, worse of all, she never fully commits to the words or moments being experienced by her character. This drags the pacing of the story, but only for the few scenes that include her. Her character requires very little screen time, but this only further pushes the need for a stronger development, yet she fails. However, Foster, Harrelson, Morton and Moverman all succeed in accomplishing something truly honest and sincere in every moment the audience gets to experience with them. This is easily one of the finest films of the year. A true work of art that was grossly overlooked by the Academy.
March 4, 2010
#3
Strong performances by Ben Foster, Samantha Morton and Woody Harrelson give this movie the nuance and poignancy that the subject deserves. It could have done with a more crisper edit. At places the gravity of the topic seemed to become a burden rather than an asset.
March 4, 2010
#4
A tremendous movie – I’d not heard too much about it going in and was blown away by the tale crafted and presented by director and co-writer (with Alessandro Camon), Oren Moverman. Why isn’t this great, small film getting Oscar buzz? It deserves it.
The movie is structured as a series of searing vignettes in which two Army officers (Woody Harrelson, Ben Foster) notify the ‘N.O.K.’ (next of kin) of a family member’s death while serving in Iraq. None of these encounters unspool in the same way – we see how many variables enter into how each notification plays out – the emotional state of the message’s recipient, where the news gets delivered, the current state of the relationship between the NOK and the deceased, and – most notably – the current emotional state of the messenger himself.
What weaves the vignettes together is the evolution of the relationship between the two messengers. Harrelson is seen first as harshly mentoring Foster as to how to do this very delicate task…then, slowly and very realistically, a bond builds between the two of them. It’s visceral and tangible. The screenwriters play this out with nuance and deftness. But they call upon Harrelson and Foster to make it work. Foster is very good. Harrelson is other-worldly good. In a perfect world, he’d walk away with an Oscar. He presents a mixture of paper-thin bravado that, when scratched, yearns for companionship.
The movie’s two best scenes, however, both involve a third person: Samantha Morton. There’s the heart-stopping scene when Harrelson and Foster inform her of her husband’s death. The emotions this brings out in Morton’s character are…puzzling and not quite as expected. It’s such a finely acted scene that the New York Times spent an entire article breaking it down – Morton’s shaking and re-shaking of the messengers’ hand, her deflecting to the messengers (“this must be hard for you”), her glancing back to the house worriedly a couple of times, Harrelson’s character’s misinterpretation of a shirt she’s drying on the line. All of this is important. Its meaning comes out in pieces as the movie progresses.
The other scene of note: many days later in Morton’s kitchen between she and Morton. It can’t be explained here without a plot revelation. But, again, it’s expertly scripted, directed and acted.
March 4, 2010
#5
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The job of notifying next of kin by the Army Casualty Notification Unit is an extremely sensitive one. Such a job is not entrusted to just anyone in the military–you have to undergo significant training before you’re assigned to such a specialized unit. That’s why it’s hard to believe that Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) would be thrust into the job when he only has three months of enlistment time left. What’s more, would the Sergeant have been chosen since he’s only recently come back from Iraq and may have been traumatized there? As for his training, his commanding officer, Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), merely throws a training manual in his lap and expects him to learn the job as they go along.
To confess, I’m a bit biased against movies such as ‘The Messenger’ because I find characters who like themselves to be vastly more compelling and believable than those who don’t. In general, characters who don’t like themselves are dull and rarely add to the dramatic flow of the narrative (can you imagine a sad-sack Tony Soprano ever capturing the public’s imagination?). The strategy of the Messenger’s scenarists is to start us off with the two angst-ridden soldiers, Montgomery and Stone, and eventually show how they redeem themselves by overcoming their depressing background and circumstances.
Montgomery is basically a putz who can’t accept the fact that his former girlfriend has dumped him and is now engaged to someone else (how many sad-sack soldiers do you know who would actually show up at an ex-girlfriend’s wedding intoxicated and wearing unwashed military fatigues?). The implication of course is that somehow, due to being traumatized in Iraq, he would end up acting that way. The contrived wedding scene is designed to show Montgomery at his lowest moment–after acting in such a boorish manner, he can now redeem himself by lending a helping hand to Olivia (Samantha Morton), the widow who he recently notified that her husband had been killed in action.
Similarly, Captain Stone also has self-esteem issues. On the surface, his by-the-book demeanor masks a deep self-hatred. This is manifested in his constant skirt-chasing and avoidance of any meaningful relationships with women. The basic question arises: would the Military actually have put someone like Captain Stone in charge of an Army Casualty Notification Unit (i.e. someone so broken and negative?). I would suggest that such a negative character is a complete exaggeration anyway, designed merely to create dramatic scenarios where none would exist truly in reality. But even if such a character existed, he would probably be the last chosen by the military to head a Casualty Notification Unit.
It takes a good deal of time before the central conflict comes to a head between Stone and Montgomery. And that is basically Montgomery believes in being a little more sensitive when notifying the next of kin as opposed to Stone who wants to follow ‘procedures’. That’s about the essence of the conflict between the two principals and when they finally confront each other, it’s not much of a payoff. The sub-plot involves Montgomery trying to start things up with Olivia–his decision to not make the moves on her is designed to show that he’s a ‘good guy’ after all and through his efforts to help her, shows that he’s attained a measure of redemption.
The Messenger also consists of various scenes in which the next of kin are notified of the deaths of their loved one’s. Given the variety of the people we meet, it’s probably the most interesting aspect of the film. Steve Buscemi’s performance is probably the most notable (for better or worse) of these characters, where he strikes Montgomery after being notified about the death of his son, and later offers a rather predictable apology.
I’ve read that the men and women who perform the job of the Casualty Notification Units are dedicated, trained professionals who by the nature of their employment, must set an example by living lives of great integrity (unlike the two troubled malcontents in ‘The Messenger’). The contrived characters of ‘The Messenger’ do nothing to enhance the reputation of these specialized units; rather, their opposition feels artificial, contrived, all part of a plot artifice that calls for the type of conflict one might expect to see in the movies but never in real life. While I have no doubt, ‘The Messenger’ was meticulously researched as to how these Notification units operate, it still feels like it was written by an outsider. ‘The Messenger’ might have gotten many of its ‘facts’ right, but unfortunately I could not believe I was watching a story about real people.